Last week, President Donald Trump announced the United States would temporarily increase the amount of beef the nation imports from Argentina — by 80,000 more metric tons this calendar year.
In an executive order, the president stated these beef imports would not be subject to tariffs, and that he came to the decision after discussion with Brooke Rollins, U.S. agricultural secretary. The White House described the move as part of its push to lower beef prices at the grocery store for American consumers. But almost as soon as the trade deal was announced, Trump was met with backlash from key allies and constituents, including ranchers who say that buying more beef from Argentina hurts U.S. producers.
“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” Colin Woodall, head of the trade group, said in a statement. Deb Fischer, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, also stated that the trade deal “sideline[s]” cattle ranchers in the U.S.
Trade groups, lawmakers, and economists agree that the increased imports from Argentina are unlikely to lower the record-high beef prices in the U.S. That’s partly because Americans already consume so much beef, according to David Ortega, professor in the Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics department at Michigan State University.
“The added volume is rather small relative to what Americans consume each year, under 1% of total supply,” Ortega said in an email, adding that this “probably won’t move retail prices much.”
But regardless of how unpopular the trade deal is, it almost certainly will spell trouble for the environment, especially in Latin America.
“I don’t see how Argentina can meet its climate commitments by expanding its beef production for the United States,” said Stephanie Feldstein, the population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Raising cattle — a ruminant that emits methane as part of its digestive process — for human consumption has a huge climate footprint, both in terms of land use and greenhouse gas emissions. Whether the additional cattle Trump is seeking are raised in North or South America will still lead to more methane and other emissions in the atmosphere. “By importing Argentina’s beef to the US, this administration is exporting its disregard for the climate crisis,” said Feldstein.
Around the world, climate change has scrambled the economics of growing food and raising livestock. In Argentina and the U.S. alike, cattle ranches have been hit hard by unprecedented droughts and rising temperatures. These factors, along with producers facing higher prices for inputs like fertilizer, labor, and machinery have caused the U.S. supply of cattle to plummet to a 70-year low.
Javier Milei, the far-right Argentinian president, spoke highly of the trade deal, saying it signaled the nation’s trustworthiness as a trade partner. But boosting beef production in Argentina to meet Trump’s new quota will force ranchers in the Latin American country to make difficult decisions.
Tobias Skarlovnik / Getty Images
Currently, Argentina devotes a tremendous amount of land to raising cattle in pasture-based systems. Unlike the confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, found in the U.S. and other parts of the world, these pasture-based systems allow cattle to graze on a variety of grasses until the “finishing” stage, when they are fed corn- and soy-based feed before they are slaughtered.
Even despite the role it plays in deforestation, raising cattle on pasture is often considered to be a more sustainable practice than feed lots. But Silvia Secchi, natural resource economist and professor at the University of Iowa, pointed out that how you measure sustainability depends on how you define it — and when it comes to beef, both pasture-based and CAFO systems come with drawbacks for the planet.
CAFOs, which are also referred to as factory farms due to how little space livestock are afforded, pollute nearby air and waterways; local communities will often report manure and fertilizer runoff, as well as noxious odors. These feeding operations are terrible for both the farmed animals and the laborers who work there. However, CAFOs are sometimes touted as climate-efficient — in essence, because the livestock have such short lifespans before slaughter that they emit less methane relative to cattle who live longer grazing on pasture.
In essence, producing more beef means choosing between two flawed systems, noted Secchi. “To me, the only answer is, we need to eat less beef,” she said.
The evolving trade relations between the U.S. and Argentina demonstrates some uncomfortable truths about animal agriculture, and our food systems more broadly. First, it shows how farming and ranching are industries that are both on the frontlines of the climate crisis, and contributors to it.
Second, it reflects the toll that meeting the rising demand for animal protein has on critical ecosystems. In addition to its impact on ranchers, drought in Argentina has also slashed soybean production. Feldstein added that this has forced Argentinian farmers to import soybeans from Brazil, where such production is a driver of deforestation, particularly in the Cerrado, a savannah heralded for its biodiversity.
These knock-on effects have implications for the planet as a whole, as areas like the Cerrado are major carbon sinks.
As the Trump administration and MAHA leaders gear up to promote even higher animal protein consumption in the U.S., Feldstein agrees with Secchi’s assessment that consumers should strive, actually, to do the opposite. “There is no form of beef production that can be considered sustainable at our current consumption levels,” she said.
